4 ms·
How so? What's the number that you come up with?
by stillbourne 8y ago
How so? What's the number that you come up with?
- always_good 8y agoIt doesn't seem very useful to parcel out the limitations of what can be simulated upstream in terms of the limitations of our own physics.
- stillbourne 8y agoThere are some assumptions that we can make about an upstream computers physics, things such as the Fundamental Constants. Not that the constants would be the same in upstream but that those constants need to be defined in order for a fine-tuned universe complex enough to have something like a computer.
- Simon_says 8y agoI ascribe a high likelihood that our universe is infinite in extent, so my answer would be ∞. But for any finite volume, the Bekenstein bound will give you an upper limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
- stillbourne 8y agoI may be incorrect but the radius of the upper bound of the Bekenstein bound would exceed the length of the lower bound of the whole universe. I came up with my number using the observable universe as the radius and the planck length as the volume. Your number would far exceed mine, I think. Edit: Ah I'm reading this wrong. You are making the argument that an informational density that large would cause a singularity. You are correct, probably.
- Simon_says 8y agoI don’t know for a fact that the universe is infinite, but there is a zero percent chance that the observable universe is the entire thing.